AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)
By way of filing the instant O.A., the applicant sought the following reliefs:
a. That the impugned corrigendum dated 06.05.2021 be quashed/set aside.
b. The respondents be directed to allow the petitioners to continue as Assistant Executive Engineer in Mechanical S&D Left Sub Division Srinagar, as same shall be in the interest of justice.
c. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in the interest of justice and equity.
What emerges from the pleadings made is that the applicant was working as Assistant Engineer in the respondent department, and in pursuance to his duties, he was deputed to Public Health Engineering/I&FC Department, where as stated, he has worked for years together. Thereafter, the applicant was recalled by his parent department and was deputed to Srinagar Municipal Corporation for further duties.
It is stated that the respondent department processed the case of the applicant for promotion of Mechanical Engineers and the applicant was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on I/C basis. The applicant has thrown challenge to Order dated
30.04.2021 on the grounds as have been urged in the O.A.
Reference has been made to Para H of the grounds wherein it is averred that the applicant was declared Covid-19 positive which prevented him from joining his duties.
Perusal of the first order passed by the CAT Jammu Bench dated 31.05.2021, reveals that the prayer for grant of interim relief of the applicant was rejected. However, the respondents were directed to file their reply in the matter. It appears that reply has not been filed by the respondents.
Law is no more res integra that an employee has no right to seek posting of his choice. It is the domain of the employer to post an employee in the administrative and public interest. To this effect, I am fortified by the judgments mentioned hereunder:
1.E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3;
2.B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 131;
3.Union of India and others vs. H.N. Kirtania, (1989) 3 SCC 445;
4.Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659;
The matter has been pending past more than five years, and as of now, coupled with the fact that the ground urged by the applicant of being covid positive, by afflux of time, is rendered infructuous.
Accordingly, O.A. No. 832/2021 is dismissed as infructuous along with all connected M.A.s, if any.